plans are found in a document posted online by an “Occupy Wall Street” working group, titled “The 99 Percent Declaration.” The document proposes a National General Assembly to be held in Philadelphia starting on July 4th, 2012

That’s the kind of showdown that some folks would like. That’s a minority of the folks. In large part, they’ve been incredibly cooperative. (But) there are small groups who infiltrate the ranks, like the anarchists and others, who don’t care about the government, just care about chaos. Let’s hope those folks are not in the majority.

Negrin is hoping for too much.

An unruly crowd with a violent streak openly calling itself, by inference, a “revolution”?

Has Occupy Wall Street forgotten about the Tea Parties, a roughly three-year old, non violent Constitutionally minded movement? Of course they haven’t. OWS is capitalizing on the Tea party’s success, while displaying none of that movement’s principled behavior or goals.

The fundamental difference between the Tea Parties and these ‘Occupier’s’ cannot be more stark. The Tea Parties have dedicated themselves to cementing the Republic back on its Constitutional foundation. Occupy Wall Street, on the other hand, disingenuously clubs the nation over the head with the flawed symbolic nature of “The 99 Percent Declaration” and plans for a ‘National Assembly.

These ‘occupiers’ ignore Government’s role in the nation’s financial crisis because they intend to take the government over.

They seek to occupy much, much broader turf.

The radical moving bodies who call themselves ‘Occupy…(fill in the blank)’ are not a revolution, nor are they a political movement. ‘Political movement’ presupposes agreed upon and understood political concepts and a coherent set of moral and practical terms or goals.

The goal of OWS is obvious. It is neither moral nor practical — except through force — which OWS clearly has no problem using to obtain its goal. [warning: link contains explicit language]

With it’s violence, it’s arrogance, and its contempt for 200 years of America’s history and Her (albeit flawed, but fixable) institutions, Occupy Wall Street is not a movement, it is a coup.

I don’t intend to spend my morning being lectured to by a president whose failed policies have put our children and grandchildren in a huge burden of debt

Understanding that the GOP have the rational, moral, and practical arguments in their favor and have nothing to gain from talks with Obama, Landry gave further clarity for his rejection of the Obama invite, saying

I’m not going to the White House to negotiate with myself

Refusing to provide moral cover for the President, Landry declared he would not

partake in his [Obama’s] political grandstanding that will ultimately do nothing for debt reduction and job creation

Landry clearly understands a philosophical premises championed by philosopher Ayn Rand: in any collaboration between two or more parties holding opposite principles. it is the irrational side which will win.

In the meantime, back in May, Times Union Editor cum wannabe ethicist Rex Smith displayed the philosophical root of ethical compromise, the idea that there is a fundamental breach between the practical and the moral. He also displayed the ethical evasiveness and the inevitable smuggling in of moral premises that is part and parcel of Pragmatism’s techniques. Pragmatism is of course a political theory that has neither morality not practicality on its side. Read the rest of this entry »

Just a few months ago Democratic House members chose to disgrace that noble body they sit in as well as our fallen heroes by taking a big slice out of the spirit of the Constitution from which our leaders get their authority.

Each of us owe our liberties to the Constitution. That inspired document is the thing our fallen have given their lives to preserve and protect.

On this Memorial Day I fear for my nation and our Republic if the spirit of a resolution introduced by House members regarding anti Muslim speech and bias is accepted by Congress (or by the people).

Representatives John Conyers, Jr., Andre Carson, and Hansen Clarke chose in March to introduce a resolution in the people’s House of Representatives that stinks of authoritarianism, tyranny, and censorship.

Congressional Resolutions define the sense of life of that body.

H. RES 283 states that the members who sign on to it are

expressing the sense of Congress that the federal government should take steps to counter anti-Muslim sentiment

that this anti Muslim sentiment

should be addressed by official government policy

which would

take steps to counter the growth in anti -Muslim sentiments, targeted rhetorical attacks

If accepted by Congress, our leaders will be acknowledging that they believe that the Federal government of the United States may, as it deems necessary, use the force of government policy and the mechanism of law to counter the sentiments and rhetoric of the people of the United States.

In other words, Congress would be stating in this resolution that speech by individual citizens of a free republic may be countered (of course no clarity is given as to what ‘countering’ would entail) simply because some in Congress (or anywhere) might not agree or approve of the speech in question.

When a free nation has degenerated to such a point that Representatives of the people expressly declare that they believe that they can and should ‘counter’ the sentiment or speech of that people, I worry for my nation.

When my leaders do not grasp that they are violating the very document that they themselves derive their power from, and that they are shutting down voices of people who have chosen them , and yet are doing so in the name of ‘free speech’, I fear for my Republic.

Conservative and liberal “commentators” (read: opinion hacks who pretend they are journalists) love a good scandal, controversy, or public disagreement. When they can’t find one, they make one up with the old stand by of “X is raising eyebrows”, all the while conveniently failing to identify any actual individuals whose eyebrows have been set high upon the forehead. The Left is aghast at Conservatives at Fox and other outlets who are atwitter over what Conservatives view as the latest in a long line of poor reasoning and outright poor taste from the White House. Of course, one must ask when aren’t Conservatives incensed over the actions of liberals?.

The political and media Left wishes to have the public believe that First Lady Michelle Obama’s White House invite to hip hop artist Common, and his subsequent visit, is just one of those ginned up controversies.

The Liberal left insists that Common’s visit is a non sequiter. Online supporters of this view go so far as to suggest that the invite was a baiting game: invite the most innocuous black artist one can find so as to drive those big old bigots on the Right into a tizzy.

It is always fascinating when celebrities and politicians display their moral bankruptcy and pontificate about the supposed moral equivalency between brutal killers and American military actions or American justice (especially in times of war). It is amazing when they simultaneously bristle at the idea that they might indeed be showing hatred towards their country and its government. It’s almost as if they do not recognize the nature of their own beliefs. It is as if they do not grasp that appeasement and apologies to human evil empowers it. Say it ain’t so.

These moral traitors do not grasp that when we forget or ignore the distinctions between good and evil, we gloss over the nature of both. When this occurs we will always end up sacrificing that which is good for the sake of that which is not.

Reviews by a critic with the caliber of Roger Ebert, half of what was the most noteworthy film critic team of the past twenty-five years; venerable critic of the Chicago Sun Times, these reviews are not a small matter. The opinions of critics such as these are not to be taken lightly, nor treated as if they have not occurred.

Roger Ebert and his fellow critics can make or break a film. They are the moderating voice and minds for America’s movie attendees, helping movie pickers sift the chaff from the wheat to determine the best film on which to lay their ten bucks. They also help movie goers understand, amid the din of post film theater chatter and concession stand sticker shock, just what they saw up on the screen.

Such worshipful views of professional criticism are held only by those who read reviews and expect enlightenment and a release from the responsibility of making informed, rational judgments. Such are positions usually held by those who accept at face value a critic’s coronation (or execution) of a film, and are unwilling to express or experience independent thought.